I remember 20 year ago, at school, when the biology teacher was presenting this dilemma. Ever since, when I hear someone saying "doing this will kill the virus", it triggers my brain into this subject, since you can't kill something if it's not alive ;)
Somewhat related, I also like the concept of the "Viruses of the Mind" [1], which makes an analogy between the spreading of a biological virus and the spreading of an ideology.
The purpose of a bacteria is to replicate. They just do it the complicated way.
That goes up all the way to modern humans; on a ground level, life is about replicating your genetic information. What you do beyond that is on you.
Viruses also provide a mechanism for horizontal gene transfer. A protein that is critical to the formation of the human placenta has a viral origin.
Viruses have a massive impact on life, but we're just now starting to realize it.
The virus has no intentionality in doing them. They're a consequence of replication.
In contrast, I think a much stronger case could be made for a chimpanzee, duck, mosquito, or even amoeba evaluating multiple options, choose one to the exclusion of others, and pursueing it.
Anything can be said to have, or not have a purpose, depending on how broadly or narrowly you scope the definition.
For use in this conversation, I think it's self evident that the level of purpose exhibited by higher-complexity organisms is several orders of magnitude different than that of basic organisms.
Wasn't sure if original poster would agree / disagree.
The word purpose has lots of usages, but the one that seems to be discussed here is some intrinsic purpose that an object or creature has for existing.
I can perform an action with a purpose, which is different to my (personal) purpose for being alive, which is different again for some intrinsic purpose for why I am here in the first place.
It's this last purpose that daseiner1 was referring to when they asked "what’s the purpose of an amoeba? or a mosquito? or a duck? or a chimpanzee?"
They are questioning if that kind of purpose even exists.
Your argument is:
Some things have more purpose than others.
Therefore purpose exists.
In this next response you get closer to defining what purpose is - "level of purpose exhibited by higher-complexity organisms" - but we haven't really established what that purpose is or what it means to have more purpose. At best you seem to be equating complexity of behaviour to level of purpose, but I see no reason why complex behaviour should imbue some kind of purpose; all usages of the word purpose imply intent of some kind, and there are many complex processes that have no intent.
I will say that complex animals seem to be more purposeful than simple creatures, but that just means that they perform actions with more intent than simpler creatures, not that they have some intrinsic purpose themselves.
I was using purpose in my sense. Daseiner1 may use the same definition, or they may be using another. As with you.
It's useless to debate anything else until we figure that out.
---
My definition is contained in my original statement "reproduction without purpose is not life." I do not consider reproduction a purposeful action, as I define it.
It's hard to be intentional about something that forms the minimum bar of existence (immortal organisms aside).
It’s also not clear if you are discussing “why I do something” (purpose of an action) or “why am I?” (purpose of me).
I would argue that's a false dichotomy. In your terms, there can be no purpose of me without purpose of action. And purpose of action requires selection from multiple viable options.
I'm not sure that there is any intrinsic purpose to anything, only ever purpose imbued.
I understand the word gets used that way, to describe some intrinsic meaning to a life, but the word being used that way doesn't mean the thing it describes exists.
To try and be a bit clearer let me write out the three usages I am aware of and you can say which you are talking about.
1. I picked up the apple with the purpose of eating it.
2. My purpose in life is to enjoy it and leave the world a better place than when I found it.
3. The purpose of humans is to colonise the universe.
1 is purpose of an action (the action is done for a reason), 2 is purpose I give myself (I choose what gives me meaning), 3 is intrinsic purpose (regardless of what anyone wants or thinks).
It is 3 which I think we have no evidence for.
I'd go as far as to say if you kill the ability to fork, a lot of processes would go extinct and be replaced.
We also analyze and modify our representations in various ways, both consciously and unconsciously. Science is one of the more explicit processes for doing so.
Of course, much of reality is lost and distorted in the process. But we do the best we can :) I like to think we make better maps of reality now and then.
I suppose, at the very least, some of the maps we currently possess can be used to enact more dramatic change in the world around us than ever before, which must say something about their truthiness.
The SCP wiki started these terms to refer to objects which present anomalous properties when you're exposed to them, such as what the foundation regularly employs to protect articles; "memetic kill agents", basically information that kills if you consume it.
It seems pretty simple to me: viruses are not living. They are able to co-opt living systems into making more of themselves.
A virus may gain life while it is inside of a cell, but why is that any different than the organic molecules which gain life when assembled into a cell? We don't say carbon is alive.
I think the distinction between what is doing the replication is spurious. The fact is even living replicators need some sort of base resource to exploit to pull off the feat. I could say that animals aren't replicators, because they inherently require other living creatures to be eaten in order to replicate.
It can be considered a toxin that a cell reacts to by creating more of the toxin.
It can be considered a collection of atoms that modifies its surroundings in a way to create similar collections of atoms.
I kind of see the point of not calling a virus a living thing. But if viruses aren't even "active" I don't really know why a cell (or even a dog) would be "active".